Who wrote Genesis 1? Poll

[Willtor]

I am open to discussion of why you think my opinions are based on delusions of grandeur, but I see no problem with accepting the passages as they are written based on what I have sited. I feel there has been no compelling evidence to change my mind. I respect the fact that there are those who disagree, but I do not feel there is justification for their conclusions in light of scripture.

I would probably be more adamant if I felt it was an eternal issue, but I see this as a questionable matter not worthy of body division. I am really in this area/thread to see what all the hubbub is about. I want to hear rebuttal to my arguments so I can build my faith and make sure I am thinking correctly. I feel I am, as I assume you feel you are.

I understand that there are feelings out there that people are too close to worshiping the Bible itself and all the rest of the arguments against my position. I feel perfectly justified standing before my Maker some day and giving account for my view of scripture and what it tells us of creation. I must assume that you and others feel the same way.

I'm not aware of any theologian who said that he read Scripture as it was written. That an ever deeper apprehension of the revelation of God is the purpose of theology has been the traditional view. This notion of "I read it as it was written" is evident of a person who is very certain about the accuracy and precision of his interpretation. Given the sheer volume of theologians who disagree with your interpretation, I would not be so quick to make such a statement. Again, not that you are wrong and the theologians who came before were right, but that in making such a drastic break from the traditional reading, you might make your arguments with a little more humility.

I do have a problem with the dismissal of scripture as myth. If you, or others, do not have the same issues, it is yours to answer for, as my views are mine to answer for.

And here is evidence of the crux of the problem, and why I would say your hubris is overcoming your judgment. Nobody is dismissing anything (that I've read). A myth is a form of literature. The implications of the content of myth are no more or less significant than those of literal historical documents. But they are different. Furthermore, I contend that it is nearly impossible for a society to put value in both, simultaneously. But, nevertheless, if God communicates both through myth and through historical narratives, then it doesn't help to call one by the name of the other and thereby show that God happens to value the same things as one's society.

Please read this carefully. Until you understand it, you will be talking past us. Your self-stated purpose, here, will be totally fruitless until you understand the positions of those with whom you disagree. You cannot test your own views until you have understood the views against which you argue. And, I assure you, as long as you think we are dismissing Genesis because it is mythical, you do not understand.

 

[relspace]

I respectfully disagree. It seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that you believe that the key to hermeneutics is to grasp what the original readers would have understood when they read the passage. You do not seem to think that the author's thought processes were nearly as important.

Not exactly. It is a matter of who the author is writing to. The same author may write a children's book, a book for an adult public and an article for an academic journal. Clearly the writing of these three things will be very different and the impact of the limitations of reader are very clear. But for the Bible we are dealing with differences in language, culture and education that goes far beyond the age differences of that example.

IMO this is a passive approach which can only give half the picture. Yes, the original reader's understanding is important. But it is also crucial to try to grasp what was in the author's mind. After all, when we read the Scriptures we are trying to grasp "the mind of Christ", and as Christians we believe that the mind of Christ was reflected in the mind of the inspired scriptural author.

But when we say that the Bible is the word of God we presume that whatever the author said is also what God has said. If you draw a distinction between the writer and God then you are saying that this is not what God would have said, and that is not a proper Christian attitude. The method of revelation is irrelevant because we are saying that regardless of the method, what is said is still exactly what God would say. This is what it means to say that the Bible it the word of God. Otherwise you are saying that the Bible is only inspired by God and that is no different from what is said by you and me.

When we read Paul's letter to the Galatians, do we merely stop at trying to understand what the Galatians would have learnt from his letter? No. We try to grasp the message and theology that Paul wanted to communicate to them. When we read the gospel of Matthew, do we stop at trying to understand what the readers would have learnt? No, we try to grasp the Christological understanding of Matthew.

Again this is not the point. The point is that because it is God' word, you can replace "Paul" with "God" and ask what is God trying to say to the Galatians. It is true that knowlege of Paul can aid in understanding what is meant but not the method by which God gives to Paul what He has to say, that is irrelevant. And that "aid in understanding" is inapplicable to Genesis if we do not know with certainty who the "writer" of Genesis is.

Same goes for Genesis. It is not enough to ask: "what did the original readers of Genesis 1 learn?" We must also ask: "what was the author trying to communicate to them?" Once we've asked this, it is impossible not to consider the further question of how the author came up with the account. Hence the pertinent question: was it revealed to him by dictation (as YECs believe), or did he generate the account in his own mind (as TEs believe)?

NO, NO, NO, as the word of God, the question remains what is God trying to say? By changing the question, you are denying that this is the word of God. The limitations of the text are not in the source but in those who receive it. God was clearly not speaking to scientists or even to very sophisticated people. It sounds like children's story because the people He was speaking to were very little different from children. If the text had been intended for scientists then the intermediary could be a child and I still would have expected God to succeed in comunicating something with great scientific significance to them. The method is irrelevant!

 

[relspace]

Ge 2:4 -
This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

This is a strange response to my post. Why bother quoting me if you are not going to say anything about what I said.

 

[RenHoek]

I'm not aware of any theologian who said that he read Scripture as it was written.

May I suggest Christ in this regard? Back to what does “every word mean? Christ did not present Satan with theological ideas when He was tempted. He directly quoted scripture. I follow that lead, and am satisfied to do so.

…but that in making such a drastic break from the traditional reading…

Like the drastic break Christ brought to the theologians of His day? Not to be contentious, or borderline blasphemous, but to illustrate my point that Christ is my example to be followed and it seems to me “every word” means just that.

Either way, I did not intend to come of haughtily. I was just attempting to plainly state my stance.

And here is evidence of the crux of the problem, and why I would say your hubris is overcoming your judgment. Nobody is dismissing anything (that I've read). A myth is a form of literature. The implications of the content of myth are no more or less significant than those of literal historical documents. But they are different. Furthermore, I contend that it is nearly impossible for a society to put value in both, simultaneously. But, nevertheless, if God communicates both through myth and through historical narratives, then it doesn't help to call one by the name of the other and thereby show that God happens to value the same things as one's society.

Myths are dealt with kindly in scripture. I reject that God would use a myth to communicate to us. I understand that your opinion is different, but I find it contradictory.

1Ti 1:4 -
nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work--which is by faith.
1Ti 4:7 -
Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives' tales; rather, train yourself to be godly.
2Ti 4:4 -
They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
*** 1:14 -
and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth.

Please read this carefully. Until you understand it, you will be talking past us. Your self-stated purpose, here, will be totally fruitless until you understand the positions of those with whom you disagree. You cannot test your own views until you have understood the views against which you argue. And, I assure you, as long as you think we are dismissing Genesis because it is mythical, you do not understand.

Below is what I was responding to. This sounds like the dismissal of scripture to me. I do understand your positions. I disagree with them, as I assume the same is true in reciprocal fashion. What is it that I am not understanding? We just do not/will not agree on the details.

- Genesis 1 is completely non-historical; it is a theological message
- Genesis 2-3 are "mythical". Adam is a "generic" Adam, a representative for created and sinful humanity. (This is not to say that there wasn't a literal fall at some point in human history -- I believe there was.)
- Genesis 4 (Cain's murder of Abel) is probably based on a true historical event, though the details are lost in the mists of time.
- The Adam of Genesis 5 was "historical" Adam -- i.e. a literal person (upon whom the Gen 2-3 myth was based) though not necessarily the progenitor of the entire human race.
- Genesis 6-9 is likewise based on a true historical event (a very large flood, with very few survivors) but again the exact details are lost in the mists of time. The story is told in such a way as to bring out its theological significance rather than strict historical facts.
- Genesis 10 (Babel) ditto.
- Genesis 12 onwards are a retelling of actual events, but again, it would be wrong to assume we are dealing with word-for-word transcripts of conversations.

 

[RenHoek]

This is a strange response to my post. Why bother quoting me if you are not going to say anything about what I said.

Not sure what that was all about . I plead idiocy . I think I was trying to quote a different post and poster, most likely jareth.

 

[Willtor]

May I suggest Christ in this regard? Back to what does “every word mean? Christ did not present Satan with theological ideas when He was tempted. He directly quoted scripture. I follow that lead, and am satisfied to do so.

So did the devil, if you recall. What made their quotes different? It was that Christ understood the content of the Scriptures as they were intended. The difference really was a theological one.

Like the drastic break Christ brought to the theologians of His day? Not to be contentious, or borderline blasphemous, but to illustrate my point that Christ is my example to be followed and it seems to me “every word” means just that.

The break was not that drastic. On almost every topic, he supported the Pharisees over the Sadducees. The key difference was that he could not distinguish between understanding and living. It is the tendency of men, especially men who have acquired high regard and/or great power, to rest on their hard-earned laurels. The Pharisees had earned the respect of the community, but they were no longer living the content of their belief. There were other (non-trivial) differences in content, but this was probably one of the biggest ones.

By that token, I'd be hard pressed to say that Athanasius, Augustine, and Aquinas (to my mind, the three preeminent pre-rationalist theologians) were quite so ignorant of the true theology. If they were mistaken on things, I approach those things, carefully, realizing that I probably have a better understanding, not because these things are so plain from the Scriptures, but because I have the benefit of hindsight (owing no small measure to more recent theologians).

Either way, I did not intend to come of haughtily. I was just attempting to plainly state my stance.

Well, that's fine, then. The main thrust of my post was that you stated, unequivocally, that you read the text as it was written. Again, even if I thought that were possible, in this life, it's the sort of thing one would make space for others to say about oneself.

Myths are dealt with kindly in scripture. I reject that God would use a myth to communicate to us. I understand that your opinion is different, but I find it contradictory.

1Ti 1:4 -
nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work--which is by faith.
1Ti 4:7 -
Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives' tales; rather, train yourself to be godly.
2Ti 4:4 -
They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
*** 1:14 -
and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth.

Again, three points:

1. Is the Scriptural meaning of "myth" the same as the contemporary technical meaning of "myth" or are they different?
2. Are the long genealogies in Scripture not actually genealogies? (1 Tim 1:4)
3. If the genealogies in Scripture are as they appear to be, is Paul condemning them?

Below is what I was responding to. This sounds like the dismissal of scripture to me. I do understand your positions. I disagree with them, as I assume the same is true in reciprocal fashion. What is it that I am not understanding? We just do not/will not agree on the details.

Yeah, if that looks like a dismissal of Scripture, you haven't understood. Certainly, whoever wrote that certainly might dismiss Scripture, but that hasn't been revealed in the content you've cited.

 

[RenHoek]

So did the devil, if you recall. What made their quotes different? It was that Christ understood the content of the Scriptures as they were intended. The difference really was a theological one.

Satan did psuedo-quote scripture (left some out). However he applied it in the wrong context, in the tempting of Christ to use His power against the Fathers will. I would argue it was the intent of the usage that was the difference, and did not change the nature of how we are called to hinge on “every word”.

I have not received an answer to what my opposition believes “every word” means

Pr 30:5 -
Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.

Lu 4:4 - But Jesus answered him, saying, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.' " Is not Genesis His word?

1Co 14:33 -
For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

Why would He confuse with a “myth” that is not true?

The break was not that drastic. On almost every topic, he supported the Pharisees over the Sadducees. The key difference was that he could not distinguish between understanding and living. It is the tendency of men, especially men who have acquired high regard and/or great power, to rest on their hard-earned laurels. The Pharisees had earned the respect of the community, but they were no longer living the content of their belief. There were other (non-trivial) differences in content, but this was probably one of the biggest ones.

The difference was big enough for them to plot and execute His most unsightly torture and death. This does not sound like a small difference in opinion. I do know what you are saying though. Jesus did uphold the law.

Well, that's fine, then. The main thrust of my post was that you stated, unequivocally, that you read the text as it was written. Again, even if I thought that were possible, in this life, it's the sort of thing one would make space for others to say about oneself.

I offer my apologies to all if I came across wrong. I am here to gain understanding. I do, however believe “every word” is in scripture for a reason, and I that is what I base my beliefs on. Obviously context is an issue, but I do not have any reason to doubt Gen 1 when it claims historicity.

Again, three points:

1. Is the Scriptural meaning of "myth" the same as the contemporary technical meaning of "myth" or are they different?

Granted, could be different.


2. Are the long genealogies in Scripture not actually genealogies? (1 Tim 1:4)

If I am not mistaken, the context here refers to the Gnostic heresies and genealogies were not to be used in the fashion that they were at the time of the writing.

3. If the genealogies in Scripture are as they appear to be, is Paul condemning them?

No

Yeah, if that looks like a dismissal of Scripture, you haven't understood.

I have understood, and the issue of “every word” causes me to call that out as the dismissal of what Christ and the writer of Proverbs declare.

 

[Willtor]

Satan did psuedo-quote scripture (left some out). However he applied it in the wrong context, in the tempting of Christ to use His power against the Fathers will. I would argue it was the intent of the usage that was the difference, and did not change the nature of how we are called to hinge on “every word”.

Of course the devil abused Scripture. That's the whole point. The question is not whether we are using "every word." For the first couple of centuries, few Christians had "every word." But they did understand what they had. Now, we have the collection of canonical texts at our fingertips. But it doesn't change our ability to misunderstand (intentionally or accidentally) the content of those texts.

I have not received an answer to what my opposition believes “every word” means


Pr 30:5 -
Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.

Lu 4:4 - But Jesus answered him, saying, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.' " Is not Genesis His word?

1Co 14:33 -
For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

Why would He confuse with a “myth” that is not true?

I never argued that Genesis was not from God. And I always argued that it was true. You're trying to refute a position I don't hold.

The difference was big enough for them to plot and execute His most unsightly torture and death. This does not sound like a small difference in opinion. I do know what you are saying though. Jesus did uphold the law.

The difference was that they thought the Messiah would do a certain set of things, and, although he was overriding their authority, he wasn't doing those things. Their eschatology was mistaken, and the result was that they fulfilled the prophecies. But you might be surprised at just how little they disagreed with him.

I offer my apologies to all if I came across wrong. I am here to gain understanding. I do, however believe “every word” is in scripture for a reason, and I that is what I base my beliefs on. Obviously context is an issue, but I do not have any reason to doubt Gen 1 when it claims historicity.

Neither do I. I just have reason to doubt that your use of the word, "history," and its use of the word, "history," are the same.

If I am not mistaken, the context here refers to the Gnostic heresies and genealogies were not to be used in the fashion that they were at the time of the writing.

Did you get that from the text, itself, or did you allow your knowledge of history and society inform your interpretation?

I have understood, and the issue of “every word” causes me to call that out as the dismissal of what Christ and the writer of Proverbs declare.

You're fond of pointing your finger at the Pharisees, but who knew the Scriptures better than they? Paul probably had the Scriptures memorized in both Hebrew and Greek. It wasn't uncommon for the religious, literate elite to have done such a thing. I don't think it was a question of them not having profound familiarity with the texts. I think it was a lack of understanding.

BTW - Try not to use quite so much formatting in your posts. It makes it difficult to get through them when responding. Thanks.

 

[jereth]

I follow just fine; I just reject your conclusions as being against what the Bible itself claims. At this point we are getting redundant and to save the next terabyte of storage on the CF server, I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

Ok, let's cut down the size of this discussion.

If you do not buy what it is saying for whatever reason, that is your prerogative, but you cannot truthfully say that the Bible does not claim it as historical.

rmwilliamsll has already explained this to you. "Toledoth" does not mean history. Why don't you actually do a concordance search for "toledoth"? Besides the mistaken NIV translation in Genesis 2:4, where else is it translated "history"?

I again ask why He would allow us to be lied too? Why would a God of truth present a myth like all the other heathen religious stories, when it was quite clear throughout the OT that He was in a mode of distancing Himself from the false gods and their ways?

You seem to think "myth" = "falsehood". Why don't you look up "myth" in the dictionary? A myth can be true, Genesis 2-3 are truthful myths.

It references Adam as a literal person that you refute in post 7. This again would be the perpetuation of a lie to me.

Logic please.
A. Adam was a literal person
B. The Six days were historical

A != B (i.e. A does not equal B)

I would ask for evidence supporting this belief. Scriptural would be nice.

See the new thread: "7 days of Genesis 1"

I have nothing more to offer you at this point. God bless.

Over to Willtor, then...

 

[RenHoek]

Neither do I. I just have reason to doubt that your use of the word, "history," and its use of the word, "history," are the same.

How would you translate the word?

Did you get that from the text, itself, or did you allow your knowledge of history and society inform your interpretation?

The preceding text indicates that it is for a specific group, knowledge of history and society helps define who they were.

You're fond of pointing your finger at the Pharisees, but who knew the Scriptures better than they? Paul probably had the Scriptures memorized in both Hebrew and Greek. It wasn't uncommon for the religious, literate elite to have done such a thing. I don't think it was a question of them not having profound familiarity with the texts. I think it was a lack of understanding.

Again, I see where you are going, and I admit I have more respect for the stance you and jareth have taken then when I started, but I do not agree with the conclusions. I do not buy the use of myth. I do not think God would dilute His point in such a fashion. Is there anywhere else in scripture that you believe myth is used? If not, why would an unchanging God break from the rest of scripture and foster confusion?

BTW - Try not to use quite so much formatting in your posts. It makes it difficult to get through them when responding. Thanks.

Not sure what you are asking. Too many paragraph-type breaks or colors in the scriptural quotes?

 

[jabechler]

We can argue over the translation or interpretation of the scriptures or believe God has preserved truth in these words and accept it. When we look at the Jews of old with some 400 prophecies concerning the coming Messiah, there was obviously varied interpretations of these but Christ came anuway fulfilling these prophecies as written and the majority did not know Him.

 

[RenHoek]

rmwilliamsll has already explained this to you. "Toledoth" does not mean history. Why don't you actually do a concordance search for "toledoth"? Besides the mistaken NIV translation in Genesis 2:4, where else is it translated "history"?

We have gone down this road. Mwilliams was refuted by his referenced sites. I posted it for all to read, go back and take a look.

Shall we call it account - : a description of facts, conditions, or events : REPORT, NARRATIVE

or genealogy – 1 : an account (see above) of the descent of a person, family, or group from an ancestor or from older forms
both from Webster’s

I posted this once already from a concordance:

1. descendants, results, proceedings, generations, genealogies
   1. account of men and their descendants
      1. genealogical list of one's descendants
      2. one's contemporaries
      3. course of history (of creation etc)
   2. begetting or account of heaven (metaph)

All speak to me as a historical account.

Why don't you look up "myth" in the dictionary?

OK
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Myth may refer to:

• Mythology, mythography, or folkloristics. In these academic fields, a myth (mythos) is a sacred story concerning the origins of the world or how the world and the creatures in it came to have their present form. The active beings in myths are generally gods and heroes. Myths take place before time, before history begins. In saying that a myth is a sacred narrative, what is meant is that a myth is believed to be true by people who attach religious or spiritual significance to it. Use of the term by scholars does not imply that the narrative is either true or false. See also legend and tale.

• A myth, in popular use, is something that is widely believed but false. This usage, which is often pejorative, arose from labeling the religious stories and beliefs of other cultures as being incorrect, but it has spread to cover non-religious beliefs as well. Because of this usage, many people take offense when the religious narratives they believe to be true are called myths. This usage is frequently confused with fiction, legend, fairy tale, folklore, fable, and urban legend, each of which has a distinct meaning in academia.

• Something that is mythic is thought to contain story elements similar to mythology. Something mythical is, however, typically considered false.

So 2 of the 3 definitions claim falsehood. You will have to pardon my taking of the word myth as falsehood. Even definition # 1 basically says it is the same as the Greek myths of gods and heroes. I do not think this is a good comparison to the Word of the Living God. I would also find it unwise to call Biblical accounts myths in front of non-believers based on the definitions of the word.

Logic please.
A. Adam was a literal person
B. The Six days were historical

A != B (i.e. A does not equal B)

Never made that claim. My point was to refute your stated:

- The Adam of Genesis 5 was "historical" Adam -- i.e. a literal person (upon whom the Gen 2-3 myth was based) though not necessarily the progenitor of the entire human race.
- - Genesis 2-3 are "mythical". Adam is a "generic" Adam, a representative for created and sinful humanity. (This is not to say that there wasn't a literal fall at some point in human history -- I believe there was.)

1Co 15:22 -
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.
1Co 15:45 -
And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
Do we serve a generic Christ as well? Some heavy doctrine here is laid on a soft foundation in your posted view of Adam in my opinion.

I do want to offer an apology to you if I have come across as anything other than seeking to understand your views by asking probing questions and challenging your opinions. I did not mean to sound too aggressive or angry in my disagreements

 

[Willtor]

How would you translate the word?

I have no problem with the word, "history." I just think one ought to educate himself about how that word has been used in different times and societies. If those of us who argue it was subtly different from the way it is today, in our society, we are almost certainly going to interpret the text incorrectly.

The preceding text indicates that it is for a specific group, knowledge of history and society helps define who they were.

Can you see why, then, we would think what we think? If we know something about a particular ancient society, we can't unknow it and substitute what is common in our own society.

Again, I see where you are going, and I admit I have more respect for the stance you and jareth have taken then when I started, but I do not agree with the conclusions. I do not buy the use of myth. I do not think God would dilute His point in such a fashion. Is there anywhere else in scripture that you believe myth is used? If not, why would an unchanging God break from the rest of scripture and foster confusion?

If it's the word, "myth," that throws you off, I'll use a different word.

Look at it like this: you know that there are instances of poetry in Scripture. Why does God break from the narrative to go to poetry? The answer is that God chose a vessel who is most fully expressed in that way. But there may well come a day when poetry is not considered a legitimate form of communication. It will be viewed as something "less than" literal, historical narrative or scientific or legal speak. There will be secular and Christian scholars who show that, irrefutably, the book of Psalms is a book of poetry. Pious Christians, everywhere, will refuse to accept it because they will be confident that God doesn't use "diluted" forms of communication. But it just doesn't change the fact that God has used such a form of communication.

Now, you and I both know that poetry is an excellent way to communicate certain things. And we know that whatever negative things anybody says about it, it's still a form of communication that God has used, and you and I will still take it seriously. We are neither going to deny that Pslams is poetry, nor ignore it because it is. It is what it is, and if we don't like it: tough.

Thus, some of us say, "myth." We've come to these conclusions because we have seen things we can't unsee. If society doesn't like myth: tough. We deal with it. All we can do is try to study what is intended and try to convince others that, perhaps, non-historical narrative is not such an awful vessel for truth.

Not sure what you are asking. Too many paragraph-type breaks or colors in the scriptural quotes?

There are a lot of:

(COLOR=black)(/COLOR)
(COLOR=black)(/COLOR)
(COLOR=black)(/COLOR)
(COLOR=black)(/COLOR)
(FONT=Arial)(/FONT)
(COLOR=black)(/COLOR)

etc.

As you type, look at the text you type and see if these are there. If they are, please remove them. Thanks.

 

[RenHoek]

I have no problem with the word, "history." I just think one ought to educate himself about how that word has been used in different times and societies. If those of us who argue it was subtly different from the way it is today, in our society, we are almost certainly going to interpret the text incorrectly.

Perhaps the better question is when do you suppose and by whom was this text written that you would not consider this the proper interpretation?

Can you see why, then, we would think what we think? If we know something about a particular ancient society, we can't unknow it and substitute what is common in our own society.



Thus, some of us say, "myth." We've come to these conclusions because we have seen things we can't unsee. If society doesn't like myth: tough. We deal with it. All we can do is try to study what is intended and try to convince others that, perhaps, non-historical narrative is not such an awful vessel for truth.

My assumption is that the “unknow” is in reference to your scientific beliefs true or false? If false, please elaborate, if true, we go back to some old disagreements that I believe to be irreconcilable at this juncture.

As you type, look at the text you type and see if these are there. If they are, please remove them. Thanks.

Strange. They do not show up in the text when I post. I removed colors and such (does this make me racist? sorry, sometimes I crack me up) from the last post and will do so in the future.

 

[Willtor]

Perhaps the better question is when do you suppose and by whom was this text written that you would not consider this the proper interpretation?

It was at least written (and in its present form) by a couple hundred B.C. Personally, I think it was written sometime between 1600-1300 B.C., but it may have been compiled as late as 1000 B.C. At any rate, prior to Josephus.

My assumption is that the “unknow” is in reference to your scientific beliefs true or false? If false, please elaborate, if true, we go back to some old disagreements that I believe to be irreconcilable at this juncture.

It is anything for which I apply observation and reason. I know the Psalms are poetry because I've read other poetry. I know the form of communication. It may include science. I don't know if you would include social sciences, "science," per se. I do, but many people do not. At any rate, I will simply say observation and reason and leave it at that.

For me to unknow a thing, I must have something to put in its place. I cannot put the modern things in its place because they are modern. Whenever Genesis was written, I'm sure we can at least agree it was written prior to our modern era.

Strange. They do not show up in the text when I post. I removed colors and such (does this make me racist? sorry, sometimes I crack me up) from the last post and will do so in the future.

Here's what your post came out looking like when I got it:

(QUOTE=RenHoek)(COLOR=black)(FONT=Times New Roman)(/FONT)(FONT=Times New Roman)(/FONT)
(/COLOR)(FONT=Times New Roman)(/FONT)
(COLOR=black)(FONT=Times New Roman) (/FONT)(/COLOR)
(COLOR=black)(FONT=Times New Roman)Perhaps the better question is when do you suppose and by whom was this text written that you would not consider this the proper interpretation?(/FONT)(/COLOR)
(COLOR=black)(FONT=Times New Roman) (/FONT)(/COLOR)

(COLOR=black)(FONT=Times New Roman)(/FONT)(/COLOR)
(COLOR=black)(FONT=Times New Roman)(/FONT)
(/COLOR)(FONT=Times New Roman)(/FONT)
(COLOR=black)(FONT=Times New Roman) (/FONT)(/COLOR)(COLOR=black)(FONT=Times New Roman)My assumption is that the “unknow” is in reference to your scientific beliefs true or false? If false, please elaborate, if true, we go back to some old disagreements that I believe to be irreconcilable at this juncture.(/FONT)(/COLOR)
(COLOR=black)(FONT=Times New Roman) (/FONT)(/COLOR)

(COLOR=black)(FONT=Times New Roman)(/FONT)(FONT=Times New Roman)(/FONT)
(/COLOR)(FONT=Times New Roman)(/FONT)
(COLOR=black)(FONT=Times New Roman) (/FONT)(/COLOR)
(COLOR=black)(FONT='Times New Roman')Strange. They do not show up in the text when I post. I removed colors and such (does this make me racist? sorry, sometimes I crack me up) from the last post and will do so in the future.(/FONT)(/COLOR)(/QUOTE)

 

[jereth]

I do want to offer an apology to you if I have come across as anything other than seeking to understand your views by asking probing questions and challenging your opinions.

Thank you RenHoek. Be assured I have not found your posts angry or aggressive. If I take issue with anything, it is with the way you seem to imply that we TEs disregard the authority of the Bible because we interpret Genesis differently.

I do not think we're ever likely to agree completely, but my hope is we can at least achieve a mutual understanding and respect for each other's position. That would satisfy me.

or genealogy – 1 : an account (see above) of the descent of a person, family, or group from an ancestor or from older forms

"Toledoth" is a derivative of the verb "begat" (at least according to the lexicon I've used). So yes, it certainly has strong connotations of "genealogy". In the OT it is exclusively used in the genealogical records of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers and 1 Chronicles.

I personally believe that the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are "historical", if you like. I.e. the persons mentioned (including Adam) were historical people who actually existed. However, they are not "historical" in the modern sense of "totally comprehensive and literally accurate". In other words, I think that there were many generations left out -- what we have is only a skeleton. I believe historical Adam probably lived at the beginning of the neolithic era (ca. 10-12000 years ago).

Now let's consider Gen 2:4: "This is the genealogy of teh heavens and the earth when they were created." I believe that the author is being clever here -- he is applying a word normally used about human genealogies to the entire cosmos. To me, this shows that he is doing something special. It's like saying: "here is the family story of the earth itself". He is personifying the cosmos, treating it as if it was a person who (in a sense) gave birth to Adam himself. (Isn't that how the story goes -- Adam the man from the dust of the earth?) This to me is evidence that he is writing mythically, not historically.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia...

So 2 of the 3 definitions claim falsehood. You will have to pardon my taking of the word myth as falsehood.

OKay, so myth can mean falsehood. But it doesn't have to. Definition #1 explains a "true myth". I agree that it can be confusing because of conflicting definitions, but that doesn't mean we should disuse the word if it is in fact appropriate. How about "legend" or "epic"? Do you think these words also have too many connotations of "falsehood"?

I do not think this is a good comparison to the Word of the Living God.

It depends on how you view Scripture/The Word. My high regard for Scripture does not depend upon it being strictly historical at every point. Song of Songs and Job are dramas. Jonah is (in the opinion of most scholars) a theological parable. Daniel and Revelation are apocalypses. Daniel and Esther may well contain (in some people's opinion) largely legendary stories. Tobit and Judith (apocryphal books, accepted by many ancient Jews and Christians) are edifying fictions.

Why can't Genesis 1-3 be mythical if their overall point is to teach truth about the living God? Paul writes to Timothy (2 Tim 3:16) that "all Scripture is ... useful... for training in righteousness", not "for training in history".

Do we serve a generic Christ as well? Some heavy doctrine here is laid on a soft foundation in your posted view of Adam in my opinion.

I believe that Adam was a real person.
He was truly sinful.
His individual story was exalted in the myth of Genesis 2-3, to teach that all humans are sinful.

Christ was a real person.
He was truly righteous.
His individual story is exalted through the gospel, bringing righteousness to many.

 

[jereth]

relspace, again I thank you for your insightful remarks. You have challenged me to think, and I certainly do hope that you challenge many other YECs and TEs to think as well.

But when we say that the Bible is the word of God we presume that whatever the author said is also what God has said.

I agree with that.

The method of revelation is irrelevant because we are saying that regardless of the method, what is said is still exactly what God would say.

I disagree that "the method of revelation is irrelevant", but I agree that "regardless of the method, what is said is still exactly what God would say."

NO, NO, NO, as the word of God, the question remains what is God trying to say?

Hmmm. I think my point of view is (very) subtly different from yours. I agree that the ultimate question is "What is God saying here?" However, I believe that the road to answering this question is to ask: "What is the writer saying here?" I don't think you can answer the first question without answering the second first.

It sounds like children's story because the people He was speaking to were very little different from children. If the text had been intended for scientists then the intermediary could be a child and I still would have expected God to succeed in comunicating something with great scientific significance to them. The method is irrelevant!

Mmmm, I don't think I quite agree. I believe that fundamental to the Christian doctrine of special revelation is the idea that God was pleased to reveal himself in and through men. As I've said in a previous post, I think that very few (if any) parts of Scripture were actually dictated. This is what sets us apart from Muslims and Mormons, who believe that God reveals himself around men.

So, I don't think that God would use a child to reveal truth to a scientist (to use your metaphor). My understanding of Scripture is that he used a peer to reveal truth to peers. The messages conveyed, though certainly the exact words of God, were (in the sovereignty of God) generated in the minds of men. Thus it is important and crucial for us to look at the motive and purpose of the author.

 

[RenHoek]

Thank you RenHoek. Be assured I have not found your posts angry or aggressive. If I take issue with anything, it is with the way you seem to imply that we TEs disregard the authority of the Bible because we interpret Genesis differently.

I think my view of scripture does not allow for the way you all seem to view this chapter. I do understand where you are coming from, but this is a good point to drop it for now as we truly are irreconcilable at this point. See you in the 7 days thread.

Wiltor,
I think my formatting problem is that I am addicted to Bill Gates for my spelling deficiencies. I think the formatting is coming from Word (not The Word). I am putting it in Notepad first to remove formatting. Let me know if this kills the parentheticals.

 

[Willtor]

. . .

Wiltor,
I think my formatting problem is that I am addicted to Bill Gates for my spelling deficiencies. I think the formatting is coming from Word (not The Word). I am putting it in Notepad first to remove formatting. Let me know if this kills the parentheticals.

That's good. No random tags. Thanks.